Windows XP Starter Edition Won’t Run on Faster Chips

As reported by C|Net Windows XP Starter Edition will only work on “Intel’s Celeron chips, AMD’s Duron or Geode chips, or processors from Via Technologies.” If one tries to run it on a processor such as the Intel Pentium 4, the operating system will read the processor ID and stop functioning. This was done to prevent “Starter Edition from supplanting standard versions of Windows XP.”

About The Author

75 Comments

this is so stupid that I had to write a comment on commenting now stupid this was…

2005-05-12 11:50 pm

This is so stupid I had to write a comment, agreeing with the above comment about how stupid this is.

2005-05-12 11:52 pm

That is really insane…

2005-05-12 11:52 pm

when I first heard about windows xp starter I thought it was a joke. now Im sure it is.

2005-05-12 11:52 pm

This is so insanely stupid I had to write a comment, agreeing with both of the above comments about how stupid this is.

2005-05-12 11:53 pm

i personaly think its a good way to make sure an investment is kept safe. since i =intend on getting a via C7 processor when they come out that will be a rather fast version of windows. if you really want blazing speed get windows xp embeded and install in on modern hardware

2005-05-12 11:53 pm

I’m not sure I fully understand the logic here.

Windows starter edition allows people to perform basic tasks, but not as many as Windows XP. Why aren’t they allowed to perform those basic tasks…faster?

Matt

2005-05-12 11:54 pm

This is ridiculous. Who in his right mind would chose Windows XP Starter Edition with 800*600 max and such limitations instead of a fully powered Linux/BSD that are *free*? (as in freedom and as in beer)

2005-05-12 11:54 pm

This is so stupid that it will be cracked before yesterday.

2005-05-12 11:59 pm

But wasn’t WinXP Starter Edition already selling *extremely* poorly?

Microsoft doesn’t really have anything to fear about SE supplanting XP: the sheer vacuum of that crippled excuse for an OS is more than enough to prevent that.

2005-05-13 12:01 am

Their decisions are not based on logic, they’re based on capitalism.

2005-05-13 12:12 am

Shouldn’t this:

“Starter Edition from supplanting standard versions of Windows XP.”

be read as:

“having to actually comply with a court order in an honorable way, instead of continuing to be a**holes”

2005-05-13 12:17 am

Ok, even if it is cheap, it’s more like Windows demo edition. Buring copies of Ubuntu would be easier than working around all those locks.

They won’t buy it when it is this crippled. People in developing countries that couldn’t afford Windows will still be pirating it, despite the Starter Edition. Especially if they buy the thing and realize how stupid it is.

2005-05-13 12:33 am

… and people actually asked if I wanted to work at Microsoft! eww *washes hands*….

…

Wait, I’m … using … WinXP … *washes hand furiously*

2005-05-13 12:36 am

This shouldent be that suprising.

Its just typical Microshaft work.

2005-05-13 12:37 am

Its these decisions which force many people to pirate the full version in these countries in the first place.So why bother pay for something like this when they can jolly well crack it?

2005-05-13 12:44 am

Well, if this doesn’t demonstrate how much on crack people at Microsoft are, then nothing will. Go install some cool version of linux instead.

2005-05-13 12:51 am

do u people even know why this version exists? its for third world or newly developing countries or countries with very little money. the kind u wont find P4’s and Athalon’s in. its made so that they to can have windows at a price they can afford. it makes perfect sence that they would limit what kind of computers it goes on. this way they make money selling normal version of XP. there are a lot of people who would only use the starter feauters but have a good computer. so this ensures they make money. and lets remember microsoft is a business first, they want to make money.

Being able to spend more money on the hardware is the main reason for buying a cheap (or using a free OS). They’ve just officially limited this to being usable only on what are sub $400 US systems.

Why on earth will somebody (even in a third world country) buy an operating system that will limit what processor they can use to just the low end processors? Its not like Athlon 64s are really expensive, and out of reach.

2005-05-13 1:13 am

lol. there’s no need to think if there’s money around. it would be even better if WE don’t think as they’re trying to do by “simplifying” the enviroment. i miss those pretty dos letteres. now look at xp. “buy music”, “open your passport account”, etc etc……. ehem.. etc…

2005-05-13 1:29 am

wonder how it will run on my old Celeron 500Mhz…..

except I already have linux running on it with a shiny desktop and such, using maybe 40-50MB RAM at idle vs. my XP box which uses 140MB+

the only programs that need Windows, that I use, need a fast computer to be enjoyable (P4, AthlonXP or better, Half-Life2, Brothers in Arms, AutoCad, Dreamweaver MX, Photoshop)

any old hardware will get a free OS installed on it

anyone at OSNews: please delete the crap posts from the discussion, even my previous response to the troll, edit this to remove the ending if you like

2005-05-13 1:36 am

i can’t help but feel cheated. this might help MS to “differentiate” this version of windows and help sales or whatever but it just feels like a dirty trick and foul play.

2005-05-13 1:39 am

If you can’t afford full blown winXP, then by the same logic you can’t afford expensive hardware. So no need to support faster hardware.

If you can afford expensive (faster hardware), then you should be able to buy a full version of windows. Thus MS maintains a reasonable pricing structure.

It makes sense if your not the type who finds anything MS does evil. Only MS haters find good in the starter edition anyways, and those people wouldn’t buy it anyways since they hate MS.

It’s not much different then the reduced media edition. You want less, MS gives you less and don’t complain that everything doesn’t work now.

I don’t think anyone has much room to complain that they can afford good hardware, but then want to run the econo-OS on it, and surprise the econo-OS is made to run on econo-hardware.

It’s not an issue of technical nature, sure MS could make it run on better hardware without an issue, but why would they want to. Same as any electronics maker that disables features that are already in the product to make it a cheaper model, thus create a lineup of products.

2005-05-13 1:42 am

I work each year in upgrading computers in schools. Due to the limits in the number of units converted and other government regulations on handling old computers rarely are they re-assigned to another school. Remember if a school started with 100 units of one model by the time 3 years later when replacements come in there only 50-80 units that are in perfect condition with all thier drives/mice/keyboards/screen … etc working.

So the machines and parts are checked for working parts, everything that is broken is removed. The working computers are often then sent to poorer countries where even an older free computers are better than nothing.

And it is the year 2005, guess which CPU models have been shipped out last year?

You are in a poor country, you get a free computer, but you find the low cost Windows does not work – but Linux, BSD, BeOS, and a number other very interesting and free OSes do.

2005-05-13 1:53 am

If the MPAA will sell DVDs in third-world countries for $2, why won’t MS sell the full-blown Windows for like $20? Seems it would be cheaper for them to do that than to create a shitty crippleware version that nobody is going to use.

2005-05-13 2:03 am

Microsoft complains about installing Linux in markets where Started edition is marketed. Microsoft allegeds that people will get a PC with Linux pre-installed and then install an illegal copy of Windows. Well, if that’s true, won’t they do the same if they get a super-crippled Windows Starter Edition?

This article comments on the processor issue, but there are other issues too: how many programs run at once, networking, etc.

2005-05-13 2:22 am

That was one of the first things I thought of when I read the article. If MS Windows cdroms are such common currency that they are used to downgrade a PC with Linux installed, to MS WinXP, then buying a computer with an XP on it that answers to the name of “Lucky” – you remember the joke about the three-legged half-blind toothless castrated dog that answers to that name? – isn’t going to do anything.

If anything, this comes across as one of those Laurel-and-Hardy stunts Microsoft and the Feds have pulled off together – Peru being merely the best-known, and the whining about Brazil going Open Source being another. This way Microsoft looks like it’s doing something useful, but in reality it’s keeping the Indians “in their place”. Kinda like a dentist giving a patient with an abcess a vasectomy instead – not what was asked for, not going to be of any use, but hey, the dentist feels better and he gets to charge quite highly for it.

2005-05-13 2:44 am

The whole point the EU requiring a “starter” edition was to avoid the media/content monopoly inherent with Windows Media Player and IE. It was never intended to be a stripped out and crippled version of Windows. This is really just an immature reaction to the EU’s mandates and is not intended to sell. I’d be surprised if it is actually produced!

2005-05-13 2:53 am

This is not the version of Windows mandated by the EU — that’s the “Reduced Media” edition, which is just XP Pro with Media Player ripped out. This one is Microsoft’s attempt to reduce software piracy in southeast Asia, by providing a cheap version of windows, on the theory that if you don’t charge so much, people will be more likely to buy the legit cheap thing than to get some sketchy $3 pirated copy.

2005-05-13 2:55 am

Because now, hopefully more people will be turned off by Microsoft’s activities and consider alternative OSes.

2005-05-13 2:55 am

RTFA. This Starter Edition isn’t intended for the EU – it’s intended for India, Thailand, all the other poor developing nations.

As I said, it is a OS answering to the name “Lucky”.

2005-05-13 3:13 am

It is a very old marketing method, you see They are forced to present an option to those countries in order to look like the good guys to the world.

But what they do is that they give you a fallacy, a fake feeling that you have an option when you really don’t (pay less for something that’s not worth nothing) (Remember looking glass and the IE fiasco?, same old story here). In the end the only real option out there is just to buy windows XP and if you don’t buy it on those countries it is better to let them steal it, since they still make money (it is better to have 90 % of the market even if only 75 % payed for their copy of windows, since this will make the software companies make programs for windows and pay royalties to microsoft as patents and stuff).

It is a way to eliminate competition, just like M$ have done in the past, they just can’t go out and buy Linux. But hell yeah they can keep it as the underdog or at least do their very best to do so.

2005-05-13 3:28 am

This is so stupid, that i have to write one to agree….as well as saying that it’s going to make MS more millions. Sometimes I wish I could be so stupid to think of an idea like this, that will make me millions

2005-05-13 3:29 am

>This article comments on the processor issue, but there >are other issues too: how many programs run at once, >networking, etc.

The limit on programs running is interesting. Do spyware/adware/malware programs that run in the background count?

2005-05-13 3:54 am

What about the thousands of DONATED or SOON TO BE DONATED Athlon, PIII, and P4 computers that need an OS? This limitation will be removed by Service Pack 1, guaranteed, otherwise score one for the pirates, Linux and the BSDs. I’d throw in Apple but this is really an x86 topic.

MS is essentially saying that paying consumers outside of certain markets have no right to a cheap, (relatively) fast, and lean Windows on modern hardware; and paying customers in these certain markets may only have the “privilege” of running Windows: Dummies’ Edition. This is worse than the WinXP Home vs. Pro silliness.

Really, the right thing is to KILL WinXP Home and Starter, and kill the annoying “Upgrade ONLY” editions. Keep Pro with a highly intelligent benchmark+install that configures its core OS distribution for your hardware. Maybe some limitations need to be set. Then if the hardware changes, it can configure itself again to better suit the new hardware, and the limits can be dynamically relaxed. Some linux or BSD distros already do this. I think MacOS X does too for older G4’s and G3’s. Cut the price and supply AGGRESSIVE upgrade pricing to OEMs and directly to consumers. It’s not like they can’t do it. MS proudly touts how modular the OS distribution is and how they can cleanly add and remove certain components and tweak the kernel to their liking. So, just don’t cripple anything and make the kernel tweaking “automatic”.

I mean, if they want people to pay, the OS core components should be unlimited. Unlimited processor cores and speed, RAM, graphics, hardware, and programs. Make people pay for feature sets like remote management, server tools, Active Directory, clustering, weird architectures, SAN, NAS, and the like. You know, the gravy that businesses absolutely need and will pay for but consumers can do without.

This way, if someone installs winXP Pro on their 4 way Opteron with 8 GB ram for an Apache server, then it runs and works and gives the expected spiffy performance. BUT they will be limited in its practical use by the lack of feature sets they didn’t pay for. They can remotely manage Apache but not windows. So, maybe they pay upgrade to winServer for the bonus features, or maybe they keep their ad hoc “server” for whatever.

Of course, this means that MS would need to “innovate” on the pay upgrade bonus features to make them worth paying for. Good Luck to them on that.

–JM

P.S. — Keep XPembedded as it may have its uses. Also, it’s likely to be the future of WinCE/PocketPC/Windows Mobile as PDAs, phones, and portable media players get more powerful.

2005-05-13 4:14 am

It’s kind of like regional codes on DVDs, I guess. A mechanism to deter richer people from importing on the cheap.

I kinda doubt this is gonna do much to curb piracy, but far be it from me to complain if MS wants to sink money into such ventures :p

2005-05-13 4:20 am

Whatttt? I buy the “stupid” upgrade versions because it is the whole OS and it’s cheaper. I don’t “upgrade” though, I do a full, clean install.

2005-05-13 4:54 am

I think this is a great idea.

It makes it absolutely clear that they get away with whatever they like, despite this court ruling and that case, they still can do whatever they like.

A totally useless prouct. A waste of shelf space and energy to manufacture. Also a useless court decision.

2005-05-13 5:51 am

This is ridiculous. Who in his right mind would chose Windows XP Starter Edition with 800*600 max and such limitations instead of a fully powered Linux/BSD that are *free*? (as in freedom and as in beer)

—————————————–

If the computer itself isnt fast or powerful enough to run anything above 800X600 res or more than a few programs at one time, why support it? This starter edition just gives anti MS zealots something to bitch about! At first I thought it was kindof lame, but now it makes some sort of sense. Since its designed to be run on very, very slow computers there isnt a need to have alot of advanced features. In a way, limiting the number of programs could be keeping people out of trouble by trying to run several applications at once. Then again, I could be wrong, but I guess a version of Linux with the same features would be perfectly accecptable.

2005-05-13 5:55 am

so this ensures they make money. and lets remember microsoft is a business first, they want to make money.

———————————–

Dont you remember, according to the Microsoft Double Standards they are not allowed to do anything that could make money.

2005-05-13 6:09 am

I was running my windows desktop at 1024x768x24bpp back in 1996 with my pentium 166, so it cant take too much processing power to do it. The 800×600 resultion limitation I suspect will be a deterent for a number of people.

2005-05-13 7:01 am

Not everyone needs IIS, FTP, SMTP, remote desktop & so on. Thats why there is a xp home & pro version & before anyone says it, not everyone needs to get server 2k3 specially for a personal webserver. 2k3 would be an overkill for it.

Who would want to pay more for something when one would never need all those features.

The upgrade version is a nice less expensive method of a home user upgrading to xp without having to shell out the cash for the so called “full” version.

2005-05-13 7:04 am

I am in general against piracy but in this case I would advise the potential buyers of this product to rather pirate the real thing or get something else. There really no point in buying this *especially* if you do not have the money for anything else.

2005-05-13 7:07 am

For the people talking about donated PCs w/ P4s/Athlons, etc., MS has programs for acquiring Windows for specifically that purpose, such as MAR. You can also take computers to authorized refurbishers for donation.

This is not about “deciding not to support higher speed CPUs”. They have artificially limited the OS, so that it detects the CPU and shuts down, even though it is technically capable of running.

Marketing, pure and simple.

2005-05-13 8:23 am

it’s not stupid nor nonsense if microsoft is able to make profits from it. many companies have made million from items that is the same level of quality. that’s all it matters the profits

2005-05-13 9:08 am

yet another amazing reason why “emerging markets” will continue to use *nix OS’s over MSFT.

2005-05-13 9:34 am

there are a lot of people that know how to change the detection of processor code. but as it is, it shows what microsoft is really about : GREED

2005-05-13 12:08 pm

They won’t buy it when it is this crippled. People in developing countries that couldn’t afford Windows will still be pirating it, despite the Starter Edition. Especially if they buy the thing and realize how stupid it is.

Which is exactly what Microsoft wants. They’ve all but actively encouraged piracy if it means someone is using Windows rather than anything else.

Making a half-assed attempt like this gives them the ability to play the victim as well, though, and bemoan software piracy. Playing up software piracy, meanwhile, makes it easier to spin draconian licensing terms as a good thing (only a software pirate would take issue with them anyway, after all).

2005-05-13 12:42 pm

After 63 comments I don’t think anyone will care what i think here.

I think Microsoft must have a special “cripled software” team, who’s job it is is to take standard products and remove vital features in such as a way as to make the software not entirely useful and yet not completely useless.

I agree a little with an earlier post that said this is a purely capitalist decision. I agree, of course it is. But i think it is a prime example of capitalism creating an even worse product, *on purpose*.

This is proly the thinking that was going to produce 7 different versions of Longhorn AND distribute it through OEM only.

2005-05-13 1:03 pm

This is the help from Microsoft to GNU/Linux

2005-05-13 1:21 pm

According to Microsoft and C|Net, it won’t be sold seperately. It will only be provided OEM. In addition to only running at 800×600:

* You can only have one user accout, for “simplification”

* No networking or shared printers

* Max of 3 open programs and 3 window instances for each

2005-05-13 1:31 pm

I live in Russia and I can tell you that more than 90% of all Windows copies are pirated, cracked or just copied from another PC. Most new PCs have either pirated Windows or some version of Linux installed (just to make sure the PC works, because most users will trash it and install a pirated version of WinXP Pro Corporate edition with all tha activation crap removed by Microsoft themselves).

Personally, I’d buy WinXP Pro from Microsoft if it was priced below 30$. But it costs 10 times more than the version you can buy at any warez shop (and these are conveniently situated near any place you work or live in).

While waiting for Longhorn I wanted to play with something new and got myself Linux. Well, I guess now I’m going to play fair and use a 100% legal (and probably better) OS than Windows. But to pay for a really crippled version of Windows, you have to be either very paranoid (or do you think Microsoft will sue 90% of all the people who own a PC? I believe that even in court and government agencies they have pirated versions of Windows) or very stupid.

2005-05-13 2:13 pm

after 67 comments on how stupid the whole thing is, heres a rave review by the objective and impartial paul theurott

With Windows XP Starter Edition, first-time home PC users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently.

So similar to Linux then?

2005-05-13 3:10 pm

Linux can have many more thsn 3 programs running, with no artificial limit set by the manufacturer. So ‘similar’ in the way that they are different. Maybe you can enlighten me as to your reasoning?

2005-05-13 6:06 pm

Lets see, to perform basic tasks, & won’t work on faster CPUs. Why doesn’t MS hold up a sign saying that “don’t bother buying this POS”. That us just stupid.

2005-05-13 6:29 pm

Who is stupid enough to buy this OS?

–> The stupid Governments.

Now they have one more excuse to say they can’t do their jobs.

2005-05-13 8:22 pm

One of Microsoft’s arguments in their antitrust suit (e.g., against stripping IE or WMP out of Windows) was the alleged “madness” and “complexity” that would result in having to support multiple versions of windows….

These are all basically the same version of Windows. Its not like they are so different like Windows ME and Windows 2000 were.

Windows XP Home/Pro – basically the same, a few minor features on Pro that are missing in Home

Media Edition – XP Pro that has a special media program running on top

Reduced Media Edition – Windows XP minus the media player

Starter Edition – Windows XP with fewer features

2005-05-14 2:46 am

I live in Costa Rica, and the situation here is mostly the same as the one described by the russian guy. About 9 of 10 PCs have a pirated copy of WindowsXP, and this is encouraged by the stores selling “clones” with a blank hard disk. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is good because people is not obligated to buy Windows, but almost no one here knows linux and pirating WindowsXP is so easy that it’s almost “normal”. Oh, and also Pentium 4s and Athlons are the vast majority. So, the point is, who is going to buy that Starter Edition crap, when here, the best-selling PCs have no OS preinstalled and you can get one so easily? Buying from Dell, HP? no way, those computers can’t compete with the “clones” pricing, so they sell more high-end models (and Starter Edition won’t run on them). Maybe government institutions as someone said.

2005-05-14 10:16 am

Quote from Paul Thurott’s article:

“Indeed, Wickstrand’s story about the XP Starter Edition team and its dedication to actually meeting the needs of real users in disadvantaged parts of the world is quite inspiring. Far from its reported destitution, XP Starter Edition is, in fact, a triumph of cooperative product design, one that simultaneously meets the needs of users, governments, PC makers, and Microsoft itself.”

My thinking is that Starter Edition can indeed be a good product for newbies — BUT, what happens several months, or perhaps even several weeks or days, after one gets acquainted well with this very limited Windows? Navigating with a mouse and going about the basic system functions is something that can be learned very quickly by any normal human, and very soon, people would be hitting the limits of Starter Edition.

So why doesn’t Microsoft, in its declared dedication to meet the needs of their customers, put Windows XP Home Edition on the same CD as the Starter edition, and when the CD is inserted, the something like the following menu to pop-up:

2. Install Windows XP Home Edition (not recommended to new users, but can be upgraded to later after installation of 1.)

But obviously Microsoft won’t be doing that any time soon.

Which makes me to categorically conclude that Microsoft is SOLELY interested in locking-in those people with the crippled version NOW in such a way that those people would ostensibly feel the need for the expanded versions of the Microsoft OS soon, so when the people have sufficient hard-earned money, they will have to “splurge” on on expanded version — with no price reduction, of course. Microsoft is in NO way helping poor families or the so-called developing countries, it just presents them with a BAIT (Microsoft Windows Bait Edition) and the governments of those countries are buying into it hook, line and sinker. The governments do not realize that once their own citizens are CONDITIONED with using Windows, they quickly (with their next computer purchase at the latest) need to buy at least Windows XP Home, and are not likely to consider Linux or BSD, because because they are not accustomed to it. In their ignorance, those governments are wasting their countries’ money to subsidize a US company, when there are currently quality free replacements for home computing (and more) that will cost nothing and have no artificial limitations.

Don’t talk to me about “inspiration” and “dedication” of the Microsoft team.

Regarding specifically the 800×600 limitation — I ran my OS/2 and Windows desktops at 1024×768 in 1993, and while the screen redraw was noticeably slower than 640×480, it was quite usable. After all, it’s just drawing a bitmap on the screen, and 1024×768 is not much bigger than 800×600. So such a limitation, even for the Starter edition, is absolutely ridiculous today in 2005.

2. Install Windows XP Home Edition (not recommended to new users, but can be upgraded to later after installation of 1.)

——————————–

Thats like asking why cant I buy Adobe Photoshop Elements and then hit a button to make it the full featured Photoshop when I am ready to move on. This is a cheaper alternative to Windows XP. Lots of other companies offer a cheap version of regular software for those that dont want/need/afford one that can do everything. If you need something that can do more, you pay extra for it. Nothing new here. Why is it OK for other companies to do this, but all hell breaks loose when Microsoft does the same thing? You hit the nail right on the head for locking people in. Every company would love to have people locked in to their products. Cheers to double standards.

2005-05-14 8:28 pm

Crass stupidity from Microsoft. You have to wonder about the sanity of people who make such decisions.

2005-05-15 9:11 am

“Thats like asking why cant I buy Adobe Photoshop Elements and then hit a button to make it the full featured Photoshop when I am ready to move on. This is a cheaper alternative to Windows XP. Lots of other companies offer a cheap version of regular software for those that dont want/need/afford one that can do everything. If you need something that can do more, you pay extra for it. Nothing new here. Why is it OK for other companies to do this, but all hell breaks loose when Microsoft does the same thing?”

I too see it absolutely normal for companies to do that — to offer cut-down versions of their software for a smaller price. There are many companies who do it and who do not claim that they are helping poor countries. And that is the problem. Have you read Thurott’s article? He goes as far as to directly insult critics (us) and makes Microsoft’s actions seem to be pure divinity; this is absolutely not the case, so that is why I propose that to go in line with their own and Thurott’s claims, they would have to offer at least Windows Home on the same CD.

I don’t vouch for other critics, but I am rationally convinced that my reasons for criticising Microsoft are rock solid.

“You hit the nail right on the head for locking people in. Every company would love to have people locked in to their products. Cheers to double standards.”

Generally you are right (although I run a software company and do not strive doing that, but I must be the exception ) Desiring lock-in is a double standard. But when you are claiming that you are doing it all in the name of poor families, God and what have you of this magnitude, this is a VERY STINKING DOUBLE STANDARD.

I thought that Blue screen of death is in the colour blue because blue is a colour aiding relaxation (that’s been proved scientifically). So it is a good colour for presenting a serious error to a human user. Red is the antipode to blue — it will freak the user additionally.

2005-05-15 5:48 pm

Additionally, when you buy the ‘light’ version of a software package it does not limit you to only running on older computer design. Older OSes maybe but not the latest CPU/Hardware designs. Infact I have a friend who runs a old house and deck design software that was written for DOS 5.0 and it is running on her P4 laptop under Windows (2000 or XP? I don’t remember which) but it took minutes to work on her old computer – now it flies. Software should not go out of it’s way to lock you out of certain hardware if it can run with it.

PS. I use to run my Amiga in 702*480 interlaced mode in 1986 and used the scrolling virtual windows of 960*640 in 1987 – 800*600 today as a limit is joke.

Presently my mom uses 800*600 to play her card games and read email. But the moment she wants to edit/print out pictures she goes to the 1024*768 because you can see enough of the picture to judge your editting if you stay too low a res.

2005-05-15 8:42 pm

Just fixed some of the bugs in 98 and rename it “Windows XP Starter Edition”. Sell it for $19.99 .